Nikon D810 vs D750

[Venser]

The D810 is an “unforgiving” camera. It does not tolerate any mistakes made by the user..

I don't understand this statement. Any camera is unforgiving if you make mistakes.

Don't even consider the 810 for "street photography", too large, to get the "best" you need a tripod, it really is the DSLR equal of a medium format camera.

Why do I need a tripod? If the shutter speed is anything around 2/(focal length), I've never had any problems with sharpness.

Highly generalized statements without evidence or citations really drive me bonkers.

[Manfred M]

Why do I need a tripod? If the shutter speed is anything around 2/(focal length), I've never had any problems with sharpness.

I did some testing when I first got the D800, mostly to satisfy myself about all the negative noise that was going around at the time.

I did some handheld shots and did the same shot using a heavy-duty tripod, ball head, cable release and sandbags. I shot in mirror lockup mode as well as using pro glass (both the f/2.8 24-70mm lens and the f/2 105mm DC lens) using the "sweet spot" aperture setting on the lenses.

When I got into pixel peeping mode, yes there was a noticable difference, but very few (if any) of my images would ever get blown up to that size, so you are right, the point is academic in virtually all circumstances I would normally be shooting under.

[Clactonian]

Beginning to realise why I left this forum before. You guys are far too opinionated. It's getting as bad as dpreview forum, which is a joke. Helpful comments and suggestions are useful, black and white opinions not at all.
Don't bother to reply.
I'll not be back.

[NorthernFocus]

...Helpful comments and suggestions are useful, black and white opinions not at all...

All opinions are useful. One does need to recognize that is what they are, opinions. It is rather frustrating when opinions are stated as fact and can be very misleading to neophytes. Then again ego prevents many of us from differentiating fact from opinion

[Venser]

I did some handheld shots and did the same shot using a heavy-duty tripod, ball head, cable release and sandbags. I shot in mirror lockup mode as well as using pro glass (both the f/2.8 24-70mm lens and the f/2 105mm DC lens) using the "sweet spot" aperture setting on the lenses.

When I got into pixel peeping mode, yes there was a noticable difference, but very few (if any) of my images would ever get blown up to that size, so you are right, the point is academic in virtually all circumstances I would normally be shooting under.

Define noticeable? If you have to enlarge images 300% to spot the difference, it's meaningless. When I had my Nikon D700 I did something similar with the 70-200 f/2.8 and unless you were a pedant, you couldn't spot the difference in any meaningful capacity.

I find most of these arguments academic. When I enlarge photos to 24"x36" you can't tell a difference unless you are close enough to lick the image. The point being standing at a normal viewing distance away or printing images on a smaller scale, it's probably irrelevant.

[ajohnw]

I don't understand this statement. Any camera is unforgiving if you make mistakes.

Why do I need a tripod? If the shutter speed is anything around 2/(focal length), I've never had any problems with sharpness.

Highly generalized statements without evidence or citations really drive me bonkers.

I wouldn't take a lot of notice of citations either. When ever I see comments like this relating to pixel density on this camera I wonder how on earth people who use smaller sensors and higher pixel densities ever manage to get sharp views even when viewed full size.

On the other hand some people can hold cameras more steadier than others. I don't think extra weight helps in that respect. And as to pixels when viewed what is actually being seen is a rather a lot of clever interpolation except in the case of some one who is using Foveon,

I've mentioned medium format complication relating to this camera before and had posts deleted. This time I will just ask which one

Medium-format digital sensors[edit]

The largest digital sensors in commercially-available cameras are described as medium format, in reference to film formats of similar dimensions. The most common size is approximately 48 mm × 36 mm (1.9 in × 1.4 in)[citation needed], due to the widespread use of Kodak's 22-megapixel KAF-22000 and 39-megapixel KAF-39000[15] Available CCD sensors include Phase One's P65+ digital back with Dalsa's 53.9 mm × 40.4 mm (2.12 in × 1.59 in) sensor containing 60.5 megapixels[16] and Leica's "S-System" DSLR with a 45 mm × 30 mm (1.8 in × 1.2 in) sensor containing 37-megapixels.[17] In 2010, Pentax released the 40MP 645D medium format DSLR with a 44 mm × 33 mm (1.7 in × 1.3 in) sensor.

John
-

[Polar01]

This is slightly off topic, however their is talk about really enlarging on screen to see if the image is sharp or and enlarged prints. I watched a video yesterday it was by Moose Peterson (some may not like him) but the video was very interesting, I will not tell you why but you will see why if you watch it.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/20...ity-a-thought/

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

Define noticeable? If you have to enlarge images 300% to spot the difference, it's meaningless. When I had my Nikon D700 I did something similar with the 70-200 f/2.8 and unless you were a pedant, you couldn't spot the difference in any meaningful capacity.

I find most of these arguments academic. When I enlarge photos to 24"x36" you can't tell a difference unless you are close enough to lick the image. The point being standing at a normal viewing distance away or printing images on a smaller scale, it's probably irrelevant.

That's exactly what I meant. If the print was 1m x 2m and I stuck my nose on it, I would have been able to tell quite easily. With a print that I get off my printer (17" x 22") the handheld might have been a bit softer, but only at pixel peeping distance.

I agree with you, quite academic and for practical purposes meaningless, especially for images posted on the web.

[ajohnw]

This is slightly off topic, however their is talk about really enlarging on screen to see if the image is sharp or and enlarged prints. I watched a video yesterday it was by Moose Peterson (some my not like him) but the video was very interesting, I will not tell you why but you will see why if you watch it.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/20...ity-a-thought/

Cheers: Allan

There are similar things on KR's site Allan. He mentions large prints from a very low pixel count camera. The same comments crop up all over the place but they never mention one factor which can be important. In principle if there are sufficient pixel to capture the detail in something or the other well it can be printed at any size at any dpi. The dpi needed is a function of the viewing distance. If the sensor can't capture the detail it needs to be viewed under conditions where that isn't apparent, some combination of size and distance, It's not possible to interpolate something that isn't there. When it is clearly defined there is no problem at all.

Possibly too simply put but .................

People who use these real medium format camera probably have the same attitude as a plate camera man I talked to a long time ago but with bells on. He was bought in for some 10x8in prints and turned up with a 10x8 plate camera. because some one might later phone and ask for a much bigger or even huge one for some reason or the other next day immediately, no you can't come and take the shot again this is what we paid you for etc. At 20x16 my 35mm gear would have handled the shot easily - apart from tilt shift and of course I couldn't check focus onto ground glass with a magnifying glass. I then asked him how they managed things like that. Horizontal enlarger and mop and bucket for print processing. He had grain to contend with and no interpolation facilities, good excuse. I'd guess similar reasoning is used today.

John
-

[NorthernFocus]

...When ever I see comments like this relating to pixel density on this camera I wonder how on earth people who use smaller sensors and higher pixel densities ever manage to get sharp views even when viewed full size...

Precisely. Why does this issue come up continually in reference to the D800/810 but never in reference to the D7100. It has higher pixel density, no AA filter, and many people shoot it with the same full frame telephoto lenses as one would use with a D800/810. And there's hardly a peep about how unforgiving it is, can only be used with tripod, etc. I'm not suggesting that poor technique isn't revealed more readily on a higher pixel density sensor for a given format/lens. It's just always puzzled my why this one particular model has been singled out for discussion.

I suspect a lot of the comments originated with pixel peepers who were previously shooting D3/D700 bodies with 1/3 the pixel count of the 800. Either that or jealous Canon shooters

[ajohnw]

Precisely. Why does this issue come up continually in reference to the D800/810 but never in reference to the D7100. It has higher pixel density, no AA filter, and many people shoot it with the same full frame telephoto lenses as one would use with a D800/810. And there's hardly a peep about how unforgiving it is, can only be used with tripod, etc. I'm not suggesting that poor technique isn't revealed more readily on a higher pixel density sensor for a given format/lens. It's just always puzzled my why this one particular model has been singled out for discussion.

I suspect a lot of the comments originated with pixel peepers who were previously shooting D3/D700 bodies with 1/3 the pixel count of the 800. Either that or jealous Canon shooters

The crazy aspect is noise. Seems people can not imagine why some full frame cameras offer a 2 stop advantage. Or why Sony would introduce a 12mp full frame.

Glad some one agrees on the other point. Here's me using 16mp m 4/3. Doubt if there will be any agreement on the other point as factual as it is.

John
-

[Polar01]

John it my way of thinking you but missed an important detail, and I do not know why in the world you brought up medium format camera as it has nothing to do with the video. The image was shot with a Nikon D4s which is 16mp full frame camera, with pro glass, hand held, and a slow shutter speed. How do I know hand held and slow shutter, saw the video on shooting the image, and to get the blur on the props it has to be slow, those that shoot planes would have a better idea of that than me. The whole thing was about image quality knowing what your camera and you can do once you push that button that is it. The image quality looked good at 12ft. x 8ft. I could only imagine the clients photo at 28ft. x 18.66ft. It may not be all about the number of pixels but more about knowledge.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

John it my way of thinking you but missed an important detail, and I do not know why in the world you brought up medium format camera as it has nothing to do with the video. The image was shot with a Nikon D4s which is 16mp full frame camera, with pro glass, hand held, and a slow shutter speed. How do I know hand held and slow shutter, saw the video on shooting the image, and to get the blur on the props it has to be slow, those that shoot planes would have a better idea of that than me. The whole thing was about image quality knowing what your camera and you can do once you push that button that is it. The image quality looked good at 12ft. x 8ft. I could only imagine the clients photo at 28ft. x 18.66ft. It may not be all about the number of pixels but more about knowledge.

Cheers: Allan

I don't know why I bought it up really either other than comments are made in that direction but believe me it isn't just a matter of skill and pro glass and and and. There is a little more too it.

I'm also currently having a downer on camera pixel counts so might just rant about related problems.

John
-

[ajohnw]

Beginning to realise why I left this forum before. You guys are far too opinionated. It's getting as bad as dpreview forum, which is a joke. Helpful comments and suggestions are useful, black and white opinions not at all.
Don't bother to reply.
I'll not be back.

I'm not replying. Just a comment.

I have seen similar comments about on the web and also seen the same sort of replies in the same area. What's different?

Really many areas of photography are varied shades of grey but that doesn't prevent people from formulating their own opinions or even adopting some one else's rather firmly. So what? Personally I see many things as shades of grey and seldomly as being purely black and white. If I am not careful I would have to qualify everything I might post here even this one. It can hard to strike a balance.

John
-

[Sam E]

You are right about the D810 eating up most of my budget, however for the right set up I could throw down some more.


What do you all think about using the D750 as my main camera, and purchase a smaller less noticeable camera for street work? Suggestions?

Appreciate this discussion,
Sam E

[Stagecoach]

You are right about the D810 eating up most of my budget, however for the right set up I could throw down some more.


What do you all think about using the D750 as my main camera, and purchase a smaller less noticeable camera for street work? Suggestions?

Appreciate this discussion,
Sam E

Sam,

The question I would ask is what camera do you shoot with now and what is it lacking that causes you to want to change?

[dubaiphil]

another working pro's view:

https://www.thedynamicrange.com/niko...vs_nikon_d810/

[Venser]

What do you all think about using the D750 as my main camera, and purchase a smaller less noticeable camera for street work? Suggestions?

When I got into photography my first camera was the Nikon D700. Over the course of three years I picked up the following lenses: 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, and the 105 f/2.8. After about a year I realized street was my favourite thing to shoot. When the Olympus OM-D E-M5 can out, I picked it up immediately with the Panasonic 20 f/1.7 as carrying the D700 for street was getting rather cumbersome.

I could never get rid of the Nikon D700 because I love shooting sports, and the Olympus didn't do a good job tracking moving subjects. That all changed with the OM-D E-M1. It proved more than adequate at being able to track a subject. I slowly started picking up lenses for the Olympus, like the 75 f/1.8, and 12 f/2.0. I was really impressed with the results, so this last October I sold all my Nikon gear and moved entirely to Olympus. My camera bag is still the same size, but it's half the weight with three bodies being housed in it instead of one.

Money isn't an issue over here, but I still looked at things in terms of replacement costs. If my D700 died, what was the cost of replacement. Same for any lens I listed. Now, with Olympus, they're practically disposable when you compare the cost differential.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is what is unique about the D750 that you require it over anything else? What can it do that a Fuji X-T1, or Olympus OM-D E-M1, or Nikon D7100, ..., can't?

[AB26]

To mention buy only two feature that makes the D810 more unforgiving than a D750:

1. A D810 does not have full Auto mode. In other words it does not have “traction control” to get you out of trouble.
2. The D810 does not have a filter to reduce the effect of moiré.

[Manfred M]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is what is unique about the D750 that you require it over anything else? What can it do that a Fuji X-T1, or Olympus OM-D E-M1, or Nikon D7100, ..., can't?

Chris does make a very good point; let me add my own experience to this, as I went through something similar and in fact reached the opposite conclusion.

We were planning a 2 month backpacking trip through South Asia (we got back just over 2 weeks ago) and it was rather obvious that I did not have room for the D800 and three lenses. I already owned two mFT lenses that I use on my high end Panasonic video camera (a 14-140mm lens and a 100-300mm lens), so going to a mFT body made a lot of sense. I had a good look at both the Olympus and Panasonic cameras and in the end opted to go for the highly regarded Panasonic GX7, which pricewise is a good solid camera aimed at the advanced amateur. It got good reviews for its features, good low light performance and fast autofocus. I also preferred the ergonomics and the ability to use in-lens stabilization over the Olympus bodies. My wife had her 6 year old D90 along, so I had another camera to compare it to. The value was another issue; I would be rather upset if something happened to the D800, but the GX7, with the two lenses could be replaced for less money than just the D800 body.

I bought the camera back in the winter and did a fair bit of shooting with it to ensure that I was 100% comfortable with it when we hit the ground in India at the end of September. I took over 12,000 shots during the two months we were away.

Did the camera meet expectations? Yes and no; I came back with some amazing shots, but I had a lot more misses that I would have had with the D800. The low light performance might be good compared to other mFT bodies, but is certainly not as good as the D800, which is not known as a great low light performer, the autofocus was slow when compared to the D800, which meant I was missing shots that I would have nailed with the D800 and the ergonomics were annoying. While I don't have large hands, the GX7 is tiny so the designers had to make compromises with the button design and placement. I make changes to my shooting parameters without taking my eyes off the viewfinder with the D800, but with the GX7, I simply could not do this reliably because of its small size. I missed the large bright viewfinder on the D800 as well (this was probably one of the main reasons I went for a full-frame; I never liked the small viewfinder on my crop-frame body; I also own a D90).

Will I use the GX7 again; of course, when small size is a priority. But for everything else, its back to the D800. There is a cost to miniaturization, and in my case, that ended up meaning I had a less usuable camera that only performed well in "good" shooting conditions (good light and relatively stationary subjects), it did not meet expectations when shooting "at the edges"...